Okay, so aside from the fact that you’re stalking me across communities for whatever reason — if I write a loophole in your employer’s code, like a patch, that keeps them from having to pay you, and they like not having to pay you, I haven’t done anything egregious or unethical? Or it’s only egregious or unethical because it’s happening to a company you don’t like?
If the law doesn’t apply without prejudice blindly and equally for all, what good is it? And who decides who is deserving? Some pathetic Internet stalker? So given your lack of ethics, would you then agree it would be fair to take your wages as well? Or do you draw the line between companies and people, or how much someone makes? Because we might find some common ground there. But on the surface, it appears you are the one throwing dog shit from that which is covering you.
And yet, you posted two comments to me, on two different communities, on two different instances, completely hostile in both of them.
You should get help. I can only imagine what you’re like in real life. Either you’re very meek when you’re not behind a keyboard, people walk all over you so you bully people online, or you’re exactly the same in real life and you hurt people around you. Maybe that’s not the kind of person you want to be, either way. If I’m wrong and it is, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. But on the off chance there’s any decency in you, take your own advice and talk to somebody.
I think you’re letting your imagination get the better of you to protect your ego from self-reflection. All I said was your opinion was dogshit, and it remains so. No amount of fiction about me will change that
if I write a loophole in your employer’s code, like a patch, that keeps them from having to pay you, and they like not having to pay you, I haven’t done anything egregious or unethical?
I don’t really care about the ethics in the Revanced situation nor the greater adblocking scene. That’s a moral question for individuals to answer. From a legal perspective, I don’t agree with the removal of original code. While I don’t know of a legal precedent for the digital age, the closest physical comparison I can make is to the distribution of a lock-pick or a gun. And we don’t prosecute lock-pick manufacturers for selling to a thief, we prosecute the thief for breaking into someone’s home with it. Exempting cases where the actual product is illegal, such as specific gun models, but as far as I am aware there is no such law against any software (yet). Even if there were, I doubt it would all under the perview of DMCA. Thus my reasoning for saying this is an abuse of DMCA and my reason for distaste towards the situation.
Bringing this back to your original comment:
I wouldn’t expect Spotify to just let people use premium services for free. Fuck Spotify, right there with y’all on that, but this isn’t egregious or unethical behavior for them.
I wouldn’t expect them to either! But I also don’t expect them to try and take down material they have no right to take down and I would consider that to be a bit ‘egregious’.
Edit: You know, I should have actually done the research before commenting. Anyway, I looked further into DMCA intent and it covers some circumvention tools which may(?) apply to adblockers, although I haven’t heard of that being tested in court before. Leaving my comment here since it’s already federated anyway.
Okay, so aside from the fact that you’re stalking me across communities for whatever reason — if I write a loophole in your employer’s code, like a patch, that keeps them from having to pay you, and they like not having to pay you, I haven’t done anything egregious or unethical? Or it’s only egregious or unethical because it’s happening to a company you don’t like?
If the law doesn’t apply without prejudice blindly and equally for all, what good is it? And who decides who is deserving? Some pathetic Internet stalker? So given your lack of ethics, would you then agree it would be fair to take your wages as well? Or do you draw the line between companies and people, or how much someone makes? Because we might find some common ground there. But on the surface, it appears you are the one throwing dog shit from that which is covering you.
I’ve never seen you before. Get help
And yet, you posted two comments to me, on two different communities, on two different instances, completely hostile in both of them.
You should get help. I can only imagine what you’re like in real life. Either you’re very meek when you’re not behind a keyboard, people walk all over you so you bully people online, or you’re exactly the same in real life and you hurt people around you. Maybe that’s not the kind of person you want to be, either way. If I’m wrong and it is, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. But on the off chance there’s any decency in you, take your own advice and talk to somebody.
I think you’re letting your imagination get the better of you to protect your ego from self-reflection. All I said was your opinion was dogshit, and it remains so. No amount of fiction about me will change that
I don’t really care about the ethics in the Revanced situation nor the greater adblocking scene. That’s a moral question for individuals to answer. From a legal perspective, I don’t agree with the removal of original code. While I don’t know of a legal precedent for the digital age, the closest physical comparison I can make is to the distribution of a lock-pick or a gun. And we don’t prosecute lock-pick manufacturers for selling to a thief, we prosecute the thief for breaking into someone’s home with it. Exempting cases where the actual product is illegal, such as specific gun models, but as far as I am aware there is no such law against any software (yet). Even if there were, I doubt it would all under the perview of DMCA. Thus my reasoning for saying this is an abuse of DMCA and my reason for distaste towards the situation.Bringing this back to your original comment:I wouldn’t expect them to either! But I also don’t expect them to try and take down material they have no right to take down and I would consider that to be a bit ‘egregious’.Edit: You know, I should have actually done the research before commenting. Anyway, I looked further into DMCA intent and it covers some circumvention tools which may(?) apply to adblockers, although I haven’t heard of that being tested in court before. Leaving my comment here since it’s already federated anyway.